Post by stuart on Dec 16, 2010 2:23:33 GMT -5
Gary's mention of that curious little gun emplacement in the plaza, covering the main gate from the inside has set me to thinking.
It is apparently one of the few alterations which Jameson succeeded in carrying out before the commencement of the siege and as I suggested on the other thread it may simply have been something small and perfectly formed which he could persuade the boys to build for him, rather than something bigger and less achievable. But why did he build it?
Dumb question in that it was obviously intended to stop Santa Anna's likely lads coming storming through the gates, but why...
You see what we do know is that the gates were already protected on the outside by that dirty great tambour which excavations have shown was just as big as it is depicted on S-N's map. Therefore an attacker would have to first storm the tambour, then blow in the gates themselves before finally stumbling into the sights of Don Benito's gunners in their little emplacement. That may be the picture he painted to encourage them, but I have my doubts.
Basically this scenario requires the Mexican commander to launch a full blown frontal assault on the single most heavily fortified part of the defences. Now alternatively of course some time ago I argued long and hard that Morales did just that, siezing the gate (per his orders) in a coup de main and capturing the 18 pounder position not by escalading the wall but by running up the ramp once inside. Again thinking it over I now have my doubts and this little gun emplacement is part of the key.
What if there were no gates?
On a day to day basis before the siege began visitors and suppliers would have been passing in and out through the gateway on a regular basis. Planting a couple of guns just inside the gateway to prevent some bright spark making a sneak attack would therefore have been both sensible and obvious. Come the siege then a different set of circumstances apply.
In the first place as we've discussed before defending that tambour is going to soak up far too many of the already meagre garrison, while at the same time there's no need for the gate. It might look good in the movies when messengers ride in and out through it, but in reality they (and the Gonzales reinforcement) are going to be slipping quietly by way of various obscure routes.
During that earlier debate Mark Lemon produced the absolutely brilliant suggestion that what appears on a sketch to be masonry walling at least to the upper part of the tambour was far more likely to be sandbags. Now one of the interesting things about Gentiliz' very convincing painting of the Alamo battle is that he doesn't show the tambour at all, but does, at first sight improbably, depict the gate as being walled up.
However given that he had a fair bit of local knowledge to work from I suggest that what we're seeming is not bricks or rubble but sandbags and that once their initial tentative offer to surrender on terms had been rejected, the garrison demolished the upper part of the tambour and re-used the sandbags to block up the main gate.
Plenty of precedent for this eminently sensible step and perhaps some other implications for how we understand some other things going on in that area, but this is enough for now.
It is apparently one of the few alterations which Jameson succeeded in carrying out before the commencement of the siege and as I suggested on the other thread it may simply have been something small and perfectly formed which he could persuade the boys to build for him, rather than something bigger and less achievable. But why did he build it?
Dumb question in that it was obviously intended to stop Santa Anna's likely lads coming storming through the gates, but why...
You see what we do know is that the gates were already protected on the outside by that dirty great tambour which excavations have shown was just as big as it is depicted on S-N's map. Therefore an attacker would have to first storm the tambour, then blow in the gates themselves before finally stumbling into the sights of Don Benito's gunners in their little emplacement. That may be the picture he painted to encourage them, but I have my doubts.
Basically this scenario requires the Mexican commander to launch a full blown frontal assault on the single most heavily fortified part of the defences. Now alternatively of course some time ago I argued long and hard that Morales did just that, siezing the gate (per his orders) in a coup de main and capturing the 18 pounder position not by escalading the wall but by running up the ramp once inside. Again thinking it over I now have my doubts and this little gun emplacement is part of the key.
What if there were no gates?
On a day to day basis before the siege began visitors and suppliers would have been passing in and out through the gateway on a regular basis. Planting a couple of guns just inside the gateway to prevent some bright spark making a sneak attack would therefore have been both sensible and obvious. Come the siege then a different set of circumstances apply.
In the first place as we've discussed before defending that tambour is going to soak up far too many of the already meagre garrison, while at the same time there's no need for the gate. It might look good in the movies when messengers ride in and out through it, but in reality they (and the Gonzales reinforcement) are going to be slipping quietly by way of various obscure routes.
During that earlier debate Mark Lemon produced the absolutely brilliant suggestion that what appears on a sketch to be masonry walling at least to the upper part of the tambour was far more likely to be sandbags. Now one of the interesting things about Gentiliz' very convincing painting of the Alamo battle is that he doesn't show the tambour at all, but does, at first sight improbably, depict the gate as being walled up.
However given that he had a fair bit of local knowledge to work from I suggest that what we're seeming is not bricks or rubble but sandbags and that once their initial tentative offer to surrender on terms had been rejected, the garrison demolished the upper part of the tambour and re-used the sandbags to block up the main gate.
Plenty of precedent for this eminently sensible step and perhaps some other implications for how we understand some other things going on in that area, but this is enough for now.
